"God so loved the world that
He gave His only begotten Son" (John 3:16)

An Inductive Study of the Use of Monogenes

in the New Testament

This study is written
by Doug Kutilek and is here used with his permission.

Greek lexicons and dictionaries of the New Testament are at
their most basic nothing other than the systematic classification of word
usage. The “authority” of such lexicons (though rarely considered by most
users) is dependent on the knowledge, judgment, accuracy, and precision of the
lexicographer. With sufficient effort and training, the individual student can
personally construct his own systematic classification of word usage, and
thereby provide a “check” on standard lexical pronouncements. This is done
(properly) by locating all uses in the New Testament of a given word, examining
closely each contextual usage, comparing these with usage outside the literary
corpus under investigation, then classifying usages in a systematic fashion.
Some attention to etymology (important for word history though having no
necessary connection to word meaning) as well as synonyms and antonyms are also
of value.

Monogenes in the New Testament

It is the purpose of this paper to make such an inductive
study of the use of the adjective monogenesin the New Testament. This word is found nine times in the New
Testament: Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; I John
4:9.

From this simple listing, it is first of all evident that
the word is conspicuously absent from the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and
though used by Luke in his Gospel, it does not occur in Acts; neither, Paul,
Peter, James or Jude ever employs the word, and though John makes more frequent
use of the word than all other New Testament authors combined, it is absent from
the Apocalypse. Some explanation for the absence of monogenes in the
Synoptic Gospels with reference to Jesus, and in Paul’s writings will be
offered.

This may be literally translated as “And when he drew near
to the gate of the city, and behold, a dead [man] was being carried out, a
monogenes in relation to his mother, and she [was] a widow, and many people
of the city [were] with her.” [2]

Jesus is here (in an account unique to Luke) dealing with
the son of a widowed woman in the village of Nain. The context is sufficiently
clear that monogenes is used to describe the special relationship this
man had with his mother, a widowed woman who apparently is destitute of other
family.

“And behold, [there was] a man who was named Jairus, and he
was ruler of the synagogue. And he, having fallen at the feet of Jesus, was
exhorting him to enter into his house, because he had a monogenesdaughter about twelve years [old], and she was dying.”

As with the previous use, here monogenesis used to describe the relationship of a child to a parent. The parallel
verses in Matthew (9:18) and Mark (5:22, 23) do not include monogenes nor
do they use any potentially synonymous terms which might illuminate its usage in
Luke.

“And behold, a man from the crowd called out, saying,
‘Teacher, I am begging you to look at my son, because he is monogenesto me.’ ”

As with the two other examples in Luke, the relationship of
a parent and child is at the center of the usage of monogenes.
And, as in the previous example, the parallel passages in Matthew
(17:14,15) and Mark (9:17) lack monogenes or any other descriptive
adjective applied to the boy.

“And the word became flesh and sojourned among us and we
saw his glory, glory as of a monogenousbeside a father, full of grace and truth. . . . No one has ever seen
God. The monogenes son, who is in the bosom of the father, that one
explained [him].”

Here, as in all of John’s five uses of monogenes,
the person so described is the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ.
Here, the relationship of Father and Son is expressly spelled out, though
clearly not the ordinary human relationship between parent and child, as in
Luke’s three usages.

“For God loved the world this way, that He gave His
monogene Son so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but may
have eternal life. . . . The one who believes in Him is not judged, but the one
who does not believe in Him already has been judged, because he has not believed
in the name of the monogenous
Son of God.”

Picking up on the usage of monogenes as found in
chapter 1, John repeats it here with reference to the relationship of the First
and Second Persons of the Trinity.

“In this appeared the love of in us, that God has sent His
monogene Son into the world so that we may live through him.” Consistent
with his four other uses, John employs monogenessolely as an ascriptive term for Christ, and uses it in a context in
which the Father-Son relationship is explicit.

“In faith, Abraham, when he was tested offered up Isaac,
and he who had received the promises offered up the monogene,
[he] to whom it was said that, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called.’ ”

As with all other New Testament usages, here monogenes
is descriptive of a personal relationship, in this case that of father and son,
and in common with all references outside the writings of John, it relates to a
biological relationship of parent and child. However, here it is notable that
Isaac was not the only son that Abraham had fathered (“begotten”), that
is, contrary to the common English version’s translation, Isaac was not
Abraham’s “only-begotten son,” in as much as Abraham had an older son named
Ishmael, thirteen years Isaac’s senior. On this basis, one suspects that there
is something decidedly erroneous in the use, here at least, of “only begotten”
as the English translation of monogenes.

Etymology of Monogenes

But sorting this out, what sense, what meaning should be
ascribed to monogenes in the New Testament? First, we will consider the
etymology of the word, not as a sure-fire guide to meaning, but as a starting
place in tracing the development of the word.

The translation of monogenes by “only-begotten” in
the KJV and other English versions in six of the nine New Testament occurrences
(all except those in Luke) would suggest a presumed etymology from monos,
“only” and gennao, “to
beget, father, procreate.” This presumed etymology is certainly erroneous. The
lexicographers are united in this. Moulton and Milligan state that ”monogenes
is literally ‘one of a kind,’ ‘only,’ ‘unique’ (unicus), not ‘only
begotten,’ which would be monogennetos (unigenitus).” [4] Thayer
gives as the roots of the word monosand genos (the latter
word meaning "kind, sort, class”), [5] as does Abbott-Smith.[6]

“Only-begotten,” then, as the English translation of
monogenes is apparently based on the word’s supposed etymology. It is a
mistake to base the understanding of a word’s meaning on its etymology (rather
than its usage), especially so if you have the wrong etymology, as is the
case of the translation “only-begotten”! This is not what monogenes
means, either in etymology or usage.

Ancient Versions

Next a check of ancient Bible translations will be helpful.
How bilingual near-contemporaries of the New Testament understood words is
likely to be a valuable guide to the meaning of such words. Consultation of
multiple diverse versions will serve as a cross-check on interpretation and
understanding. If unrelated versions in unrelated languages agree on the
meaning of a word, the likelihood of that being the correct understanding is
strengthened. First, the Latin versions will be considered, then the Syriac.

Latin Versions

In the Old Latin, there was apparently a uniform rendering
of monogenesby unicus
[7] which means, “only, sole; singular, unparalled, unique” [8] and from which,
most obviously, comes our English word “unique.” The Old Latin part of
manuscript D (Codex Bezae) has unicus (in various cases) for monogenes
at Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; and John 3:16, 18 (it is defective in the Old Latin
part at John 1:14, 18; I John 4:9). The manuscript never contained the book of
Hebrews. [9] The meaning “unique” fits nicely in every New Testament example:
the son of the widow of Nain was her only/unique son. So, too, of the
daughter of Jairus: she was his only child. Likewise with the man in Luke 9:
his son was without siblings, in short, unique. With reference to Isaac, while
we recognize that Isaac was not Abraham’s only son, his relationship to
Abraham was nevertheless unique, since Isaac alone was born “according to
promise,” that is, in fulfillment of a Divine promise. It seems that in all
these cases, the very uniqueness of the relationship of parent and child would
also carry a strong measure of endearment, preciousness, and love. Unicus
carries no hint of the notion of begetting or fathering. Even the
references to Christ fit nicely with the meaning unique. While there are
many “sons of God,” he is the Son of God in a unique sense, that of eternal
relationship, not as with us a relationship established in time on the basis of
grace through faith. So even here, following the lead of the Old Latin versions
of the NT, unique seems entirely appropriate and adequate as a
translation of monogenes.

However, in the revised Latin version of Jerome, commonly
called the Vulgate, while the translation of monogenes by unicus
in Luke is left unchanged, in every case where the term is applied to Christ, as
well as the singular reference to Isaac, the translation is altered to
unigenitus, [10] literally “only-begotten.” It was from this translation in
the Latin Vulgate that this sense and meaning imputed to monogenes passed
into the Reformation vernacular versions of Europe (eingeborenen in
German, unigenito in Spanish, only begotten in English, etc.).
What motivated Jerome to make this revision? Dale Moody informs us that Jerome
was influenced in his thinking by attendance at a series of lectures by Gregory
of Nazianzus, in which he discussed the eternal relationship of the Persons of
the Trinity, speaking of God the Father as the begetter (gennetor) and
God the Son as the one begotten (gennema). [11] This led to or was
based on the presumed etymology of monogenes as from gennao
instead of the correct genos. Jerome’s substitution of unigenitus
for the Old Latin’s unicus in six of the nine New Testament occurrences
(all those which refer to Christ, and the one reference to Isaac--because he is
a “type” of Christ?), was based on theological considerations, which in turn
seem founded on etymological speculations, speculations which happened to be
entirely false and misleading. As a result, Jerome’s revision introduced into
the New Testament a much less accurate, in fact, positively misleading and
erroneous translation. The influence of the Vulgate on Western vernacular
translations preserved and propagated the error.

The Peshitta Syriac

Turning to the Peshitta Syriac version of the New
Testament, we find that in all occurrences of monogenes in Luke, John and
I John, the Syriac has yichidaia’ [12]; in Hebrews 11:17, the related
word yichida’ is employed, both adjectives from the same root, ychd,
having the basic idea of singleness, aloneness. [13] As with the Old Latin, the
Syriac version found no sufficient grounds for translating monogenes in
any way connecting it with the idea of procreating, fathering, or begetting, nor
did it draw a distinction between the use of the word with reference to Christ
on the one hand, and with reference to ordinary human children on the other.

Greek Old Testament Translations

It is important to take a look at the broader usage of
monogenesoutside the New
Testament, including the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, and early Christian
writers. Monogenes is found a number of times in the pre-Christian Greek
translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint, along with the 2nd
century A.D. Jewish Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, as the
most common translation of the Hebrew adjective yachid. It is so used in
the LXX at Judges 11:34 of Jephthah’s only daughter (a usage identical with all
three Lucan usages), and is employed in the LXX in Psalm 22:20 and 35:17 where
yachid is used in parallel with “my soul”--resultant meaning being “my
life” or some such idea. In Psalm 25:16, yachid / monogenes are
adjectival, meaning “alone.” Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion have monogenes
at Proverbs 4:3, of a mother’s only son (LXX has agapomenos, literally,
“one who is loved”); likewise Aquila and Symmachus have monogenes at
Jeremiah 6:26 of an only son. [14] There, as well as in Amos 8:10 and Zechariah
12:10, the LXX translates yachid by agapetos (“dear,” “beloved”).
Genesis 22, where yachid
is used three times of Isaac (vv. 2, 12, 16), is a most notable case. In all
three instances, the LXX has agapetos, while Aquila translated the first
occurrence and Symmachus the second by monogenes.
[15] Furthermore, Josephus describes Isaac, with reference to this
passage, as Abraham’s monogenes, [16]as did the writer of Hebrews, in spite of his dependence on the LXX).
Philo wrote of Isaac as agapetos kai monos (literally, “dear and only”).
[17]

It seems evident from this text and their common
interchange as Greek translations of yachid that agapetos and
monogenes are close synonyms. This would explain why monogenes is
absent as a term for Christ in the Synoptic Gospels, who use agapetos of
Christ (and only of Christ) nine times: Matthew 3:17; 12:18 [18]; 17:5; Mark
1:11; 9:7; 12:6; Luke 3:22; 9:35; 20:13. This instead of monogenes was,
perhaps, their chosen translation of an ostensibly original (Aramaic)
yichidaia’ spoken by God the Father at the baptism of Jesus and on the Mount
(or, if spoken in Hebrew, yachid), and by Jesus in parables about
Himself. [19]

Apocrypha

In the Apocrypha, monogenes is employed in five
passages (Tobit 3:15; 6:10 [ms. A, not Aleph or B]; 6:14 [ms. Aleph; A and B
havemonos]; 8:17; and Baruch
4:16 [mss. A and R; Aleph and B have monos]), all used of the only child
of parents, as in Judges 11:34, and Luke 7, 8, and 9. Since the Greek of these
passages is a translation of unknown and unavailable Aramaic (or Hebrew) texts,
it is impossible to know with certainty what the original word(s) was.

Apostolic Fathers

In the Apostolic fathers, Clement of Rome (and later Origen,
Cyril and others) employs monogenes to describe the Phoenix, a bird
reported to live 500 years--a unique bird, in a class by itself. [20] The usage
here is strictly in the literal sense of the word--"unique, one of a kind"--with
no thought of endearment or preciousness as commonly found in New Testament and
Greek Old Testament usages. At the very least, it reveals with certainty that
monogenes has nothing per se to do with “begetting.”

Translating Monogenes into English

What then is the best way to translate monogenes
into English? “Only-begotten” is clearly unacceptable, because it is based on a
false etymology and misunderstanding of the word. Taken literally, the English
word suggests derivation, creation, origination of Christ, a view which is
doctrinally heretical and clearly in contradiction to the teaching of the Bible.

“Only” has long been used in at least some of the New
Testament passages, especially those in Luke, and in some versions, it is used
in the rest of the passages as well, even with reference to Christ. This
rendering has the advantage of at least not being misleading, though it falls
short in that it fails to convey the sense of preciousness, endearment, love
which are inherent in monogenes when used of inter-personal
relationships. The paraphrase “one and only” employed by the New International
Version in all the John, I John and Hebrews references (the latter being
especially inexplicable contextually) fails on the same score.

Perhaps in the Luke passages, where the idea of
preciousness is inherent in the context, the translation by “only” is adequate.
For the other passages, in order to bring out all aspects of the word, I would
suggest as the translation a sort of double rendering, namely “unique, dear” as
in “We saw his glory, glory as of the unique, dear son of the father, full of
grace and truth” (John 1:14b); “God loved the world this way: he gave his
unique, dear son so that whoever believes in him will not perish, but will have
eternal life” (John 3:16). Perhaps this sounds a bit stilted, but it is at
least accurate and brings out all facets of the word’s meaning in those
contexts.

Theological Implications

Understanding monogenes in its proper sense--one
that completely excludes any notion of “begetting” or “begotten”--has strong
theological implications for the doctrine of Christ. It renders moot the whole
heated theological debate of the third and fourth centuries concerning the
so-called “eternal generation of the Son,” a term which always left me with the
uncomfortable feeling that if we accepted such terminology at face value, we
were admitting de facto that Christ was a created being and not God. It
also makes the Nicene Creed’s affirmation that Christ was “begotten but not
made” (gennethenta, ou poiethenta) so much verbal nonsense. [21]
Likewise, proposed translations of monogenes such as that noted in Arnt
and Gingrich’s Greek Lexicon, namely “begotten of the only one” are
exposed as wholly ludicrous and unfounded. [22] Christ is the unique Son of
God; that is, in the sense in which He is the Son of God, He has no brothers.

---Doug Kutilek

Footnotes

1. All quotations from the
Greek New Testament are from The Greek New Testament According to the
MajorityText, edited by Zane Hodges, and Arthur L. Farstad.

2. All English translations
of Bible quotations are my own. Words in brackets have been supplied ad
sensum though having no corresponding word in the Greek original.

3. The variant reading
theos is strongly supported by early witnesses to the text, including
manuscripts p66, p75, Aleph*, B, and C* as well as the Coptic (Boharic) and
Syriac (Peshitta) versions, along with a significant number of early patristic
quotes, numerous later manuscripts and some other versions. If genuine, it
constitutes an important additional “proof-text” of the Deity of the Logos,
i.e., Christ. See Barbara Aland et al., edd., The Greek New Testament,
p. 314.

4. The Vocabulary of the
Greek Testament, pp. 416-7.

5. Greek-English Lexicon
of the New Testament, p. 417.

6. A Manual Greek
Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 296.

7. See B. F. Westcott,
The Epistles of St. John, p. 169; Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the
Gospels, vol. II, p. 281.

8. Cassell’s Latin
Dictionary, p. 599.

9. See Scrivener, ed.,
Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis.

10. See Bonifatio Fischer,
Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem in the passages noted previously.
It is also notable that the Latin version of the so-called “Apostles’ Creed”
(which pre-dates Jerome) translates the Greek monogenes by unicus,
while the somewhat later Nicene Creed translates monogenes by
unigenitus, just like the Vulgate. See Philip Schaff, Creeds of
Christendom, vol. II, pp. 45, 57.

11. “Only begotten,”
Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, p. 604. This article is in
my estimation exactly on target in all details, except for its failure to note
the aspect of endearment inmonogenes
when used of personal relationships, and his failure to note that both
agapetos and idios are synonyms of monogenes.

12. Of necessity, Roman
script is substituted here for the Syriac.

13. See J. Payne Smith, ed.,
A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, p. 191. Under the influence of the
Vulgate, this lexicon gives among the meanings of these two words
“only-begotten,” an idea wholly alien to the Syriac root or the word’s usage, as
a comparison with usage in Jewish Aramaic--a sister dialect of the same
language--abundantly proves, Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, etc.,
p. 574.

15. Ibid. What they
had in the other occurrences, or what Theodotion had was undiscovered by me.

16. Jewish Antiquities,
I, 222.

17. On Abraham,
XXXII, 168.

18. Quoting Isaiah 42:1,
where the LXX has eklektos (“chosen”). On this see the following note.

19. Two additional probable synonyms of
monogenes are idios (“one’s own”) and eklektos. In Matthew
12:18, Isaiah 42:1 is quoted. For the LXX’s eklektos (used of Christ
again in John 6:69, in many early manuscripts), Matthew reads agapetos.
Paul uses idios of Christ (though never either monogenes or
agapetos) in Romans 8:32 (with “son” expressed), and almost certainly also
in his sermon in Acts 20:28, “which he purchased with the blood of his own
(idios)
[son].” On this interpretation of the Acts passage, see F. F. Bruce, Acts of
the Apostles, pp. 380-1; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the
Greek New Testament, pp. 480-1. Irenaeus, in his treatise “Against
Heresies,” has a tantalizing statement, “For Abraham. . . delivered up as a
sacrifice to God his only-begotten and beloved son, in order that
God also might be pleased to offer up for all his seed His own beloved
and only-begotten Son, as a sacrifice for our redemption” (emphasis
added) (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, p. 467). It might prove very
instructive to know just exactly what the Greek is for the italicized words in
the above quote.

20. Lightfoot, Apostolic
Fathers, part I, vol. 2, p. 87.

21. For a frank and pointed
analysis of the understanding of monogenesadopted here as it applies to the Nicene
Creed, see J. O. Buswell, Jr., A Systematic Theology of the Christian
Religion, vol. I, pp. 110-112.